Dispatches from the 10th Crusade

What’s Wrong with the World
is dedicated to the defense of
what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of
the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the
Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The Sand Castles of Liberalism, and What Lies Beyond

The liberal dogma of Zero Group Differences, explained by John Derbyshire in terms of the following experiment -

Experiment Y: Take a largish group—say five thousand—of people at random from any fairly compact, but not too compact, populated region—fifty to a hundred miles across, say—anywhere in the world. Now take a second group of the same size from some other similar region elsewhere. Run both groups through batteries of mental and personality tests.

Which is permitted to yield only the following conclusion -

Experiment Y will, under all circumstances, with all possible combinations of groups, deliver identical statistical profiles on all metrics, with only statistically insignificant variations.

has suffered the utter and absolute collapse of its foundations, and this has occasioned great anxiety, as liberals (and, truth be told, a fair number of conservatives as well) contemplate in fear and trembling the allegedly dire, antisocial, and retrograde consequences of the diffusion of this knowledge. It is curious, though, that this should be the case, given that the same sort of people who will, as good modernists and positivists, insist upon the most rigorous fact-value distinction imaginable, somehow forget that very dualism in this case. But leave that curiousity to the side. It is worth taking a brief and partial inventory of all of the silly and sometimes pernicious things that this liberal orthodoxy underpins: the affirmative action industry, which impacts everything from employment decisions and the fortunes of small businesses to college admissions; the festering culture of grievance, according to which the failure of certain subsets of the population to achieve outcomes comparable to those of other segments proves that the latter are somehow discriminating against and oppressing the former; the risible deconstructions of entire bodies of knowledge, which can no longer be accepted as the common heritage of our civilization, but must be reduced to the invidious products of Evil White Men bent upon domination and subjugation - a preposterous notion which, at its most extreme, characterizes linear, logical thought itself as an instrument of European hegemony; the self-serving agitprop disseminated by our elites, according to which mass immigration of the sort from which we suffer is not a problem, because the new immigrants are just like us in every important respect (except when they're not, as when they are easier to employ, but leave that aside, as well); the fetish for economic globalization, which presupposes that America and Americans are a sort of continental Lake Wobegon, where everyone is above average and we can all have mentally stimulating employments designing electronic gadgets that will be produced in Japan and China, and all Americans are overqualified for jobs as menial as, well, making stuff; and, well, you get the idea.

If group differences are real as a matter of statistical averages, then disparate outcomes are more or less entailed, and those of European descent cannot be blamed for this. If so, vast sectors of our contemporary political and economic culture are an absurdist kabuki theatre, a tableau of pretense and, in the case of those, say, denied admission to schools for which they are plainly qualified, injustice. Immigration and globalization become, on various levels, alliances of the elites and the global poor and underclasses against the middle, and the American future begins to assume the sociological shape of Brazil, instead of that of a first-world nation. We can have our literature back. And so on and so forth.

All of this raises, however, a thorny question concerning what those of us who self-identify as conservatives envision succeeding the liberal dogma, once this emerging body of scientific knowledge percolates through the body politic. For most conservatives, I would imagine, this science essentially represents a vast labour of the negative, a tremendous effort to disprove a stultifying orthodoxy that grows less tenable by the week. What they imagine succeeding the liberal orthodoxy is just a sort of laissez faire approach to these matters: we'll arrive at a workable and stable modus vivendi if the government and do-gooders just leave us alone and allow us to sort things out. There will be no irrational discrimination, only the salting of the earth where once there grew a pestiferous weed of untruth:

....there is no reason to suppose that whites will arbitrarily discriminate against qualified black persons because of differences in average racial IQ, especially given the laws against discrimination. The real problem for liberalism is not that the recognition of race differences in intelligence would lead to renewed irrational white prejudice; the real problem for liberalism is that the recognition of race differences would destroy the liberal belief that all races should have equal intellectual and economic outcomes, which in turn would lead to the demise of the liberal indictment of supposed white racism as the supposed cause of those inequalities.

In short, then, to follow this line of reasoning, we will be able to dispose of the numerous irrationalities of liberalism, from education policy to immigration, and gradually work things through as a society. At the most, the grounding asserted for liberal policies of meliorism will have shifted, from the turpitude of a dominant white society keeping the minorities down to, perhaps, the obligation to cushion the lower half of the bell curve from the plenteous blows of modern life.

Alas, this is not the only option. While most of us who take an interest, devout or merely occasional, in this subject would be content to liberate our society from the dogma of Zero Group Differences, others are desirous of pushing further:

The main haul of the HapMap will be a flood of data that will overwhelm those who would deny that significant genetic differences exist between humans. Even more importantly, it will provide an invaluable base of information for those who would usher us into an age of reengineered humans.

I'm sorely tempted to endorse the following evaluation: the positivist tendencies of modernity can assume two forms. The first form, as far as these matters are concerned, simply posits individuals of the species as equal in the right to freedom and its benefits, and when the latter prove to be realized unequally, strives to equalize conditions and outcomes. We are, in Zippy's terms, free and equal supermen, and when this reality is obscured, it can only be as the consequence of an unjust social environment. The notion of equality presupposed in these cases is pretty clearly non-empirical, and absent any sort of religious and/or philosophical foundation, can only be asserted arbitrarily and imposed my force of law, as it is now. The second form notes that there obtains no empirical, quantifiable equality among men, and either endows the overclass with superior rights, remains indifferent should they claim such rights, or embraces a future of engineered inequality, since the benefits of science cannot be bestowed upon all without distinction.

It is worth posing the question to conservatives, of what objective is of greater import to them - overthrowing a risible liberal orthodoxy, or throttling the eugenic future before it has the opportunity to befoul our society? Myself, I opt for both/and. Conservatism possesses the resources to both assimilate the science and articulate a basis for the dignity of the individual, though this latter objective requires recourse to old-school philosophy and teleological doctrines that are, frankly, incomprehensible to most moderns. With all apologies to Alasdair MacIntyre, we are confronted with a Whose Human Nature? Whose Goods? problem, where the respective discourses are so incommensurable that we often seem to be reduced to stammering that the consequences of our opponents' ideas are so intolerable/evil/retrograde that the ideas must be false. Though I believe that both liberal orthodoxy and the eugenic future must be resisted, I suspect that Steve Sailer is correct that the regnant orthodoxy will march ever onward. Perhaps it would help to parody and mock it, after the fashion of this spoof of science-averse conservatives.

The question begs an answer: which is more tolerable to us, the liberal orthodoxy and all of its works and pomps, or the future of genetic engineering? The devil we know, or the devil behind door number two? And if we answer "neither", how can we overcome the literal incomprehensibility to our contemporaries of our arguments?

Comments (40)

So, Maximos, I'm curious--how do you see things getting better for American society as a result of the general acceptance in "polite company" of the presence in our midst of an underclass rendered permanently so by its genetic heritage?
Do you foresee Blacks eventually just accepting the fact that, by and large, they actually *are* inferior, and in ways that make them increasingly less able to meet the demands of the future, rather than more so? And, do you also foresee, therefore, Blacks ceasing to accuse the majority culture of offering them an intrinsically unjust role in the future of human society? Do you see Black anger dissipating as a result of the acceptance of genetic inferiority, and Whites (or Asians, perhaps, down the road a bit further) assuming the White (or Yellow) man's burden of caring for them like so many cheerful children?
Given the ground on which we stand today, I don't see how this information is helpful.

I think the parallel here between "engineered inequality" and the reality-denying insistence on equality of outcomes is an interesting one.

The whole transhumanist thing is, of course, science fiction. We will never upload our brains into computers and all the rest of the nonsense. What I think is true, however, is that a push for eugenic abortion and population control will continue to coexist with the denial of group differences. These already do coexist. The same liberals who are furious if you mention group differences are enthusiastic about population control programs in the first world and viciously angry at, e.g., the cutting of funds for the UNFPA. I have read that in the U.S. it is already common practice in some states for state-run homes for unwed mothers to require the girls to be on birth control as a condition of entry. One wonders what would happen if one of the girls said she had had a conversion experience, was living chastely, and hence didn't need the implant in her arm! I think all of this will probably be accelerated as time goes on.

Rodak, I think if people focus on themselves and their immediate situations, a lot of the discontent you worry about would dissipate. Suppose the question weren't "How many people of my skin color have jobs as _____ or an income of _______" but rather "What ought I to be doing with my life? What sort of job am I cut out for? How can I work to get it?" The cultivated group-outcome-based resentment all over the place helps no one whatsoever.

That is a terrifically interesting and difficult question. I think it is true that at the moment advanced liberalism and transhumanist eugenics are of a piece; yet it seems just as true that one modality can survive if the other dies. Contemporary liberal theory resists explicit admission that the existence of the free and equal superman implies (necessarily implies, given actual human nature: not everyone can in fact be the superman, however conceptualized) the existence of an untermensch; yet in fact it does. Perhaps rather than facing two doors we are merely facing the same path ahead as always, but it is a path which becomes impassable without making the identity of the untermensch explicit.

But I'm undecided on what constitutes the most coherent description. A Chinese curse comes to mind.

"Suppose the question weren't 'How many people of my skin color have jobs as _____ or an income of _______' but rather 'What ought I to be doing with my life? What sort of job am I cut out for? How can I work to get it?'"

Lydia--
This presupposes that individuals actually are asking the former question, rather than the latter. I would contend that, of those asking questions at all, this isn't true. I think that there are sociologists, politicians, etc., mostly of a liberal bent, asking the former question, with reference to minority populations when they should be asking the latter.
I think, however, that where the Black and Hispanic populations are concerned, you have mostly people asking the second question of themselves, OR individuals who have pretty much given up on the "system" and are finding alternative means of getting by that are destructive of the fabric of society.
Are we to quit telling minority persons that, as Americans, their potential for success is limited only by their willingness to work hard to achieve success? Are we going to track them as hotel maids and dishwashers from early K-12, based on IQ tests, and expect that this will satisfy the desires and expectations created in all individuals in this society by Madison Avenue?
This is precisely what was being done when I was making my way through K-12; and it resulted by the time I was in college in urban riots and the MC5 singing "The Motor City's Burning."

All times are "interesting," when push comes to shove. Perhaps our choices are, very roughly, between 1984 and Brave New World? This is how it seemed when I was young. Then there was a period of unexpected optimism, which I now admit may have been primarily a creation of cocaine-induced euphoria among the yuppified Boomers of my generation; more BNW than 1984. Well, we are old and in the way now. But--in the way of what?

I don't see any reason to "track" people as hotel maids from early childhood. Everybody would be better off being able to do things that, by and large, our stupid public schools are not teaching people to do. Like read and do their times tables. Often the schools are explicitly not teaching people to do these things. (At our local charter school, which is better than most, you have to choose a "traditional" math track if you want your child to learn the times tables. Otherwise they don't!)

So "tracking" is more or less a moot point in an educational system where we have people not even learning basic skills that will be useful to them even if they are...hotel maids.

It has never seemed to me that the "you can do anything you want to do" approach is good for anybody--black, white, male, female, whatever. You _can't_ do anything you want to do. I have poor eyesight. There are plenty of physical things I can't do. I would be at a disadvantage in the workforce (which, fortunately, I don't have to join) through sheer difficulties getting to work, if it involved highway driving, parking in a parking garage, etc.. We all have limitations. So, yes, we should stop telling people that "their potential for success is limited only by their willingness to work hard to achieve success," because it isn't true. For anybody.

Lydia--
The "poor eye-sight" example is really not germane to the point. The expectation is not that every person can become, as Derb illustrated, a good tennis player. But the expectation has been created, presumably as a goad to success, that anyone who works hard enough can reach certain *levels* of success, using whatever God-given talents he possesses. If you take that away at an early age, pretty much across a whole identifable population, you had better first have devised a really well-thought-out, and workable, alternative.
How you are you going to tell people that, unfortunately, God just hasn't seen fit to give them any high quality talents?

How well is a society served by dissembling and double-speak, lies and falsehoods that must be enforced by a managerial caste in government, academia, and business, whose members essentially assume the authority of a second political estate? How well is a society served when literally epoch-altering decisions are taken on the basis of such fetid dishonesties - immigration policy which, on the lower end, undermines the integrity of lower and middle-class living standards, and, on the further end, is justified by reference to a globalization process that envisions all Americans as equally endowed with the heritable traits requisite to success in a stratified, less-diverse, "information" economy? How well is society served by the myth that all American children are capable of mastering algebra, the finer points of English composition, and the latest scientific theories - an illusion which underlies NCLB? In point of fact, the combination of our all-to-capital-we-surrender economic policies and our liberal illusions about intelligence and group differences is labouriously constructing the preconditions of the intractable social conflicts of the future, conflicts which, in an increasingly stratified - after the Latin American models, probably - society, will precipitate the demise of the last vestiges of self-government in America.

There are indeed categories of knowledge rightly regarded as forbidden; nevertheless, the bodies of knowledge implicated in these controversies lie too close to the surface of our social life, our national conversations, and, literally, the integrity of our Constitutional system of government, for them to be waved back to the outer darkness of discourse, as mere taboos.

In truth, I believe that the core of the issue is not even the burgeoning scientific evidence of heritable group differences, nor even the anxiety and anomie that so many experience upon contemplation of a future in which this knowledge is diffused. In my judgment, the core of the issue is the question of fundamental socio-economic structures, of the architecture of society within which people of diverse endowments and attainments are afforded the opportunity of pursuing the diverse goods of existence, of sustaining their families, contributing to their communities, and maintaining the common good. That, moreover, is scarcely a strictly racial question; it is a question concerning the fortunes of the overwhelming majority of Americans, who are not now, and will not be, members of the cognitive elite in finance, business, and management, these latter classes being the only groups benefited, in the long run, by our present economic and social policies. If we implement the proper political and economic reforms, we can establish the social conditions under which the diffusion of the knowledge of group differences will be significantly less invidious, inasmuch as the average and somewhat-below-average will be able to achieve dignified lives. If not, then we'd best contemplate the historical fortunes of market dominant minorities, and prepare for a future of increasing social conflict. Anyone for an American Hugo Chavez?

*It is not my intention to disregard the substantial philosophical issues concerning fundamental human dignity, of those aspects of human nature which obtain irrespective of the specificity of individual and group endowments. I've simply elected to emphasize what I regard as the societal conditions implied by this human dignity, the conditions of its recognition, respect, and flourishing. Our social and economic policies have engendered, and continue to exacerbate the travails of, a class of de facto untermenschen; the eugenic employment of the new science will merely apply a logarithm to social dynamics.

"If we implement the proper political and economic reforms, we can establish the social conditions under which the diffusion of the knowledge of group differences will be significantly less invidious, inasmuch as the average and somewhat-below-average will be able to achieve dignified lives."

This in a society the economic elite of which howls in pain and predicts inevitable ruin each time an increase in the minimum wage is proposed? This in a society in which the very concept of a minimum wage is considered to be Stalinist, if not Maoist? This in a society that is being flooded with Third World economic refugees, not because the left so much wants them, but more as a hedge against the tyrranies of the afore-mentioned minimum wage demands of the "somwhat-below-average"?
Perhaps you'd better define "dignified."

"But the expectation has been created, presumably as a goad to success, that anyone who works hard enough can reach certain *levels* of success, using whatever God-given talents he possesses."

But that isn't true, either. Look, I think the physical example _is_ germane, because different God-given talents are valuable in different societies, and the only reason poor eyesight, or being small and physically puny, is not a bigger drawback in the United States is because ours is a more technological and wealthy society and can afford to employ academics and other nerds. We also have many gadgets and a set-up that doesn't require so much physical strength and skill in women in taking care of a home and bearing and raising children. On the frontier, I'd probably be dead.

So what we are essentially saying when we tell people about "certain levels of success" is that they all have at least such-and-such a level of the talents that are in fact saleable in our society (often, mental talents), and that therefore they will be able to make at least such-and-such an income. But do we know that is true? In fact, we know it definitely _isn't_ true of many of the handicapped, for example.

So do we know it's definitely true of everybody else? I don't. Should it be? I guess it depends on what "such-and-such an income" is and what measures are proposed to make sure everyone gets it. It may be that some people will always need charity. I've certainly known people like that. And they weren't all dumb, either. There are many ways of being dysfunctional.

Rodak, as I've argued seemingly countless times previously in this forum, America once possessed an economy in which the average could aspire to, and attain, a comfortable and relatively secure middle-class lifestyle. That is no longer the case, not in an economy in which, according to certain analyses, up to 40% of all American jobs could be subject to outsourcing, and in which jobs that once afforded entry into the middle class are increasingly taken by desperate third-world immigrants, who are only present within our borders because the economic establishment seized the opportunity to rend the social contract of American life to shreds. Were these things not the case, group differences would be much less salient as a political question, and we would, over time, be capable of muddling through to a modus vivendi. The confluence of globalization, the untenable social policies predicated upon the DZGD, and eventually genetic engineering, however, betokens catastrophe.

Essentially, three imperatives lie within the historical moment, at least insofar as conservatives wish to contemplate the times. First, liberalism is untenable, on scientific grounds alone, let alone philosophical grounds (though I'm not addressing this argument directly in this post), and this advantage must be pressed, not merely to secure a partisan triumph, but because untruth is inviable as a foundation of social policy. Neoconservatives cannot be permitted their (ig)noble lies, and neither can liberals. Second, conservatives and progressives must stand athwart the eugenic future as something not only calamitous and iniquitous in its consequences and works, but as a perversion (via instrumentalization) of human nature itself. Third, and finally, conservatism cannot effectively resist either the potentially destructive consequences of the diffusion of knowledge - and the potentially resultant unrest - and the eugenic future of engineered inequality, of the superman, beyond good and evil, stamping on the faces of the untermenschen forever, unless its adherents repudiate the political and economic philosophy of the superman.

Should this programme be impossible of realization, then expect tough history.

Maximos--
I'm wondering now, just who are these conservatives (since you distinguish them from the "economic establishment", as well as the "neocons") who are going to seize political power and prevent the genetic engineering of the Superman? And, supposing this were to be accomplished here--as a result, I suppose, of America's unique God-fearingness--how will our progeny protect themselves from the Superhuman onslaughts that will inevitably be launched at them from abroad?
I'm not trying to counter your point-of-view here; I'm just at a loss to see where it's going, and what might it its best case scenario for a happy ending.

There's one other thing that worries me. From what I've seen, by far the majority of folks who are really gung-ho about race realism as regards average IQ are also hardcore materialist-reductionist evo-psych Darwinian types. That includes both Derbyshire and Steve Sailer who you cited in this article.

Now, provisionally adopt this view in your mind, and see where it leads you. Under the reductionist Darwinian view, there is nothing essentially human by which we are all equal. The individual human is merely the sum of their physical drives and capacities. There is no qualitative difference between humans and animals, only a quantitative matter of degree, with the primary quantity that sets us apart being our superior intelligence.

Now, combine this premise with the premise that some racial groups are less intelligent than others. The result is that the difference between one group and another, where one is more intelligent than the other, is in principle analogous to the difference between a group of humans and a group of apes. Perhaps the degree is less, but not the principle.

If you accept both premises (1. reductionism and 2. variable racial intelligence) then the conclusion is inescapable: less intelligent races are "less human" than more intelligent ones, by the only metric of humanity that isn't mere sentiment.

I don't think that this inescapable logic is lost on the liberal elite. They are quite aware of it, at least on a subconscious level. I think that leads directly to what Derbyshire terms the "dogma of Zero Group Differences". You see, the liberal elite are themselves materialist reductionists, so they must accept the first premise. They know full well what is implied if it is combined with the second premise, and they are (to their credit) desperate to avoid that conclusion. They aren't willing to give up their materialism, however, so instead they are forced to conjure up as dogma the only means by which human equality could be maintained in a world where intelligence is the measure of a human: that all groups of humans are equally intelligent.

Essentially, a "noble lie" (Zero Group Differences) has been constructed to counter an ignoble one (ateleological reductionism), in order to prevent the horrific consequences that would follow from people accepting the latter on its own en masse.

What should conservatives do? As you say, we should argue for the truth, and a noble lie is still a lie. However, it is often the case that half of the truth is the most dangerous and insidious lie of all (For example, "You shall be like God, knowing good and evil"), and this is no exception.

Thus, we need to either debunk both lies at once, or keep our mouths shut about both of them if we cannot. To debunk the noble lie while leaving the ignoble one in place would have the most disastrous consequences of all. We need to recognize that those who favor the ignoble lie but want to get rid of the noble one are not really conservatives or our friends, even if we may occasionally collaborate with them in opposing the noble lie.

Most importantly, we need to oppose the ignoble lie (ateleology/materialism/reductionism) most forcefully of the two lies (as it is both the more dangerous of the two, and the motivator of the other), and not just by offering squishy, inoffensive feel-good alternatives to it (along the lines of "Science doesn't outright disprove God, so you can still believe in Him if you wish to and it makes you feel good"). We need to give hard, objective, analytical reasons that it wrong, irrational, foolish, self-contradictory, etc, and we can't afford to be gentle with those who promote it.

"..less intelligent races are "less human" than more intelligent ones, by the only metric of humanity that isn't mere sentiment."

That is absurd, in addition to being despicable. A member of an allegedly less intelligent race is every bit as human as the member of any other race. Is an Irish Setter less "canine" than a Border Collie because the latter is a demonstrably more intelligent breed? No. Both are dogs--members of the same species--mutally fertile, and capable of breeding and producing fertile off-spring.

Deuce, I think that here Rodak is on to something--the existence of species can be seen by way of the natural light. Wesley J. Smith asserts all the time that "human exceptionalism" is a secularly-discernible fact. He insists that it does not require any religious premises to see that the human species qua species is different from other animal species and to see that this confers value on all individual humans. Smith's special concern is, of course, the severely disabled, especially those who are severely mentally disabled. But it would apply to any human being.

Now, I know well that what this requires is that a sort of hyper-nominalism about biological species can be seen to be _false_ by the natural light. It has to be possible to see that humans are a _type_ of being that, qua type, is special, and that this specialness has ethical implications for individuals regardless of their specific mental attainments or abilities.

It's an interesting question whether the thesis of human exceptionalism requires the denial of materialism.

That is absurd, in addition to being despicable. A member of an allegedly less intelligent race is every bit as human as the member of any other race.

This is true, but the Left does not believe being human has any intrinsic worth (they would call this speciesism). Instead, moral worth comes from sentience or the ability to suffer, which is why the Left supports abortion "rights" and animal rights simultaneously.

Is an Irish Setter less "canine" than a Border Collie because the latter is a demonstrably more intelligent breed? No. Both are dogs--members of the same species--mutally fertile, and capable of breeding and producing fertile off-spring.

Well, that depends what particular set of physical characteristics is meant by "canine". Given any particular set of traits, certainly some dogs are closer to it than others. Or perhaps by "canine" you simply mean a creature capable of interbreeding with other canines. In that case, say you were to genetically modify a population of Border Collies so that they were capable of interbreeding with the canine population at large, but were capable of breeding with each other, and otherwise acted exactly like typical Border Collies. Would they then be "less canine"? More or less so than a Toy Poodle?

That is absurd, in addition to being despicable.

Why despicable? Let's assume reductionism here. Is it despicable for me to refer to Neanderthals as "less human" than you or I? If so, what about Homo Erectus? Habilus? Chimpanzees? Surely there's some point at which you would have to say that, yes, this group of hominids is less human than I am, correct? It may be uncomfortable, but how is it despicable. It simply is. And what, under a reductionist ontology, is the main thing separating us from them? Intelligence.

Perhaps you would protest that it's despicable to refer to some people groups as "less human" because "human" refers to some objective, binary, essential essence that all humans share and all non-humans lack, by which they are all equal in objective, abstract dignity. However, this is essentialism, and it is precisely what is denied by reductionism. If you make that objection, therefore, it's really reductionism itself you're objecting to as "despicable". Under reductionist assumptions it's not despicable. It's simply an uncomfortable truth that must be faced by rational people, just like racial differences in IQ. For the reductionist, "human" is just a label we place on some organisms.

Perhaps you would arbitrarily define "human" so as to include all currently existing hominids equally, such as "all hominids born within the last 200,000 years" or "all organisms that form a potentially interbreeding population with myself" (which would exclude anyone with a mutation making them unable to interbreed, btw). This definitional game wouldn't change anything in principle though: it would still be the case that, under a reductionist view, the primary trait distinguishing the organisms we call "humans" from the organisms we call "animals" is degree of intelligence - a trait that similarly distinguishes some human groups from others.

Look, I'm not advancing this view, far from it. I'm just pointing out that it logically follows from the simultaneous acceptance of both materialist reductionism and variable racial intelligence. And because people are rational beings, I don't think it will be possible to stop them from following the logic themselves if the dogma of Zero Group Differences is knocked down, without reductionism also being knocked down.

I'm not happy about the fact that it logically follows. In fact, as long as many people remain reductionists, I'd prefer that they don't follow the logic, but rather continue to clutch the Zero Group Differences dogma like a security blanket.

What I'm doing is giving practical advice for conservatives to deal with a likely outcome. I'm saying that because this is what logically follows, it is what people are likely to conclude, so we as conservatives need to be prepared for that eventuality, and act accordingly. I personally have no control over whether that outcome happens, don't advocate it, and don't want it to happen, so there's no point in accusing me of being despicable.

Gosh and gol-ly! Maybe your're right! All along I thought it was my opposable thumbs that made me human! Now I find out that it's my ability to understand pseudo-academic jargon and tortured think-tank-ready syntax.

Materially, there is a 1% difference in the human genome and that of the chimpanzee, as pointed out by Nicholas Wade in Before the Dawn:

"There is a clear continuity between the ape world of 5 million years ago and the human world that emerged from it. The thread is most visible at the level of DNA: the genomes of humans and chimpanzees are 99% identical."

If one wants to reduce that which is characteristically human to the level of physiology and biochemistry, the distinction between any human specimen and the late, great Washoe, the signing chimp is negligible.
If, on the other hand, human exceptionalism is to be based on having been created in the image of God, then any slight difference in average intelligence between one group and another is irrelevant.
That said, I don't believe that it has been shown that the average IQ of any human group falls below the "normal" baseline.
No attempt to label a race as "less human"--which sounds worse if we were to say "subhuman--is either scientific, or (certainly) religious; it is, rather, blatantly political, and, I repeat, despicable.

Yes, Rodak, but Deuce's point is that the liberals _are_ materialists, so they think if they acknowledge intelligence differences they cannot avoid that despicable conclusion.

Interestingly, in particular individuals we of course cannot avoid noticing that they are less intelligent than average, sometimes very far less. If liberals are really so concerned about this, why does their concern get aroused only when it comes to racial differences? Are they not bothered by the possibility that their premises obligate them to consider Downs Syndrome children sub-human? To me, that is at least as despicable. But race is a sacred topic to liberals, beyond disability. So I'm not sure that a worry about despicable conclusions is all that there is behind liberal resistance to statements about racial differences.

Myself, I consider that materialism itself is obviously false, and that by the natural light, too. Cogito, ergo sum, and all of that. I'm in direct contact with my own mind. If liberals cannot see that for themselves--and many can't--they have an intellectual problem that goes beyond a refusal to acknowledge the existence of God.

I realize you're being tongue-in-cheek here, but I thought I'd nevertheless point out that chimps have opposable thumbs too (four of them, in fact).

If, on the other hand, human exceptionalism is to be based on having been created in the image of God, then any slight difference in average intelligence between one group and another is irrelevant.

Rodak, it's not entirely clear to me who you are trying to argue with here. Yes, if human exceptionalism derives from the Image of God, then we are all equally human, regardless of slight (or even large, for that matter) differences in intelligence. The Image of God provides precisely the rational foundation for human essentialism that is needed for human equality. I agree that the Image of God is the basis of human dignity and equality.

But guess what? Most of the folks who are most enthusiastic about the scientific evidence against the Zero Group Differences dogma are materialist reductionists, who believe that the Image of God is a superstition, a fairy tale (that includes Wade, who you just mentioned). Likewise, the liberal intelligentsia promoting the ZGD dogma are themselves mostly reductionists, who think that the Image of God is a fairy tale.

If you want to give the Image of God defense of human equality, you have to reject materialist reductionism. The IoG is something that simply cannot exist under reductionist assumptions. While I believe that it is objectively real and can be rationally inferred from commonsense observation of humanity, it isn't a physical property, and cannot be articulated within a materialist framework. That's why I say conservatives need to oppose the ignoble lie more than the noble one, to prevent the ignoble one's disastrous consequences when taken alone.

Again, I'm not sure why you're getting angry at me. Perhaps you don't understand what I meant by materialist reductionism, and mistakenly think that I'm advocating the "less human" claim rather than opposing it? Or maybe you find the idea so viscerally shocking, that you are simply lashing out at the person who made you think about it, even though he doesn't support it? If the latter, good for you, it bespeaks of humanity on your part. But you should channel that anger into something productive, like trying to actually do something about the looming catastrophe.

Rodak, it's not entirely clear to me who you are trying to argue with here.

You get used to that.

The IoG is something that simply cannot exist under reductionist assumptions.

It is important to understand how broadly this scopes. That is, even if the materialism is positivistic/de facto/material rather than de jure/formal this all still applies. Functional materialism within the domain is still materialism within the domain, even when the functional materialist is religious or whatever outside of the putative demarcations of the domain in question. There are plenty of religious people who are functional materialists when it comes to politics.

Functional materialism within the domain is still materialism within the domain, even when the functional materialist is religious or whatever outside of the putative demarcations of the domain in question. There are plenty of religious people who are functional materialists when it comes to politics.

Exactly. Or to put it another way, there are a lot of people who are religious in an institutional or nominal sense, and would probably profess to believe in the IoG if prompted, but who don't believe it to be really, truly true the same way that material truths are true, and who don't treat it as having any relevance to their actual behavior in the political arena.

That's why I said above that conservatives need to oppose the ignoble lie (reductionism) as being false and irrational (and ipso facto defend the IoG as being true and rational) in a hard, objective, analytical sense. Fideistic, subjectivist, feel-good bromides of the "science still leaves you wiggle-room to believe in God if it makes you comfortable" variety aren't going to cut it when it comes to holding back the onslaught of the Brave New World.

Deuce--
Thanks for sticking with it. I now understand what you meant by "I'm just pointing out that it logically follows from the simultaneous acceptance of both materialist reductionism and variable racial intelligence." I don't agree that it does logically follow*, but at least I agree that I was wrong to be angry with you. You're a fine fellow. My apologies.

*I don't agree that once a species has become a distinct species, an individual, or group of individuals, within the species can be can be of that species without being *entirely* of that species. The boundaries between species are not permeable. And I therefore don't think that anything other than a perversion of the IoG belief can lead to the concept of a sub-human race.

And, while we're at it, I don't know that I buy the idea that there exists on the left a ZGD doctrine that extends any further than equal treatment under the law for every group, *despite their differences*. Is it not people on the left who champion diversity in such areas as student bodies? And is the whole concept of diversity not predicated on there being obvious, recognized differences between the various groups? Is it not people on the left who decry the advance of "McWorld" can the loss of distinctive cultures and the global economy tends to paint world cultures over with a monochromatic brush.
And I don't think that the left demands equality of outcome where there is competition involved.
It does demand equality of access to the "game", however. It does demand equal access to services where the denial of such services is unjust.
Any move toward the genetic engineering of a Superman, would be a move towards a kind of standardization, based on a blueprint of what is possible, that would not seem to me to be a leftist impulse. I would look for that coming from the materialist right.

There I think you are definitely wrong, Rodak. The left certainly does demand equality of outcomes. The absence of such equality is taken as decisive evidence of discrimination. This has been used in legal contexts and is informally argued every day of the week. The sheer fact that there are group differences in outcome is taken to be the "residual effect of discrimination." As for group differences--sure, if we're talking about group differences that can be cast as _cool_ and as _favorable_ to the mascot group, that's no problem. But the ZGD doctrine the guys are talking about here concerns, specifically, differences in traits such as intelligence where those differences would not favor the left's mascot groups. And the entertainment of the existence of _those_ difference is strictly verboten on the left--a thought crime, in fact.

"The absence of such equality is taken as decisive evidence of discrimination."

Well, yes. But we have to admit, of course, that there has been rather radical, institutionalized, discrimination throughout most of this nation's history. And, while this situation has been legally addressed and partially rectified in the last forty years, or so, there is still plenty of de facto discrimination, based on lack of opportunity due to poor economic conditions, that is not being adequately addressed. So...

I look upon this as being a bit like the global warming issue: Even give the hypothesis (or fact, if you insist) that most of the global warming is occurring naturally, the junk being pumped into the atmosphere by man *can't be helping*. Likewise, even if differences in average IQ is a factor in inequality of outcomes, discrimination *can't be helping*.
The question remains: are the differences in average IQ between groups great enough to account for the rather large gaps in outcome? I think not.

"...de facto discrimination, based on lack of opportunity due to poor economic conditions, that is not being adequately addressed"

I find that phrase interesting. Does it mean, "Because people in some groups have poor economic conditions, other people assume falsely that they are not well-prepared for jobs and hence de facto and under the radar of the various government programs discriminate against them despite their full qualifications"?

Or does it mean, "Because people in some groups have poor economic conditions, they aren't actually very well intellectually or ability-wise qualified for jobs, and people 'discriminate' on the basis of this actual lack of qualification, but they shouldn't do so, because it isn't the people's fault, because really their economic conditions _should_ have been better addressed, so the employers should just overlook the problems and hire them anyway, so we'll call this 'discrimination' and blame the employers for the disparity in outcomes if they refuse to overlook the differences in actual ability at the time of application"?

Lydia--
What it means is most like the latter. But the proper solution is not to demand that people hire these unprepared citizens; it means that the adverse conditions that rendered them less than optimal employees should be addressed and rectified. It has little to do with race. Where I live the people "discriminated" against in this way are lily white, blonde, blue-eyed, rural Appalachians.

All this debate over how conservatives are to face an impending "transhuman" future and how we are to formulate a response to it, and not one reference to the Word of God? Christ is our only defense against what lies beyond the sand castles of Liberalism.

In correlating IQ to Outcome, it would be most instructive to do so with reference to things such as standardized testing in the schools, in which comparisons test scores are the Outcome, and IQ is a major determinant of Outcome.
Income is affected by whole ranges of variables, of which IQ is only one.

Btw, there's another salient factor that keeps me wary of signing on with most of the "race realists". Imo, the reductionism that tends to run in their circles causes them to push the actual scientific evidence beyond the proper scope of what is actually rationally warranted, and to try to extend genetic racial differences into an overarching explanation of nearly everything.

An example that springs to mind is the immediate aftermath of Katrina, when stories started coming out of a Mad Max style anarchy. I recall Steve Sailer saying something along the lines of (not an exact quote) "When you get right down to it, the ultimate reason they behaved this way is that they have poor native judgment, because they're black".

Except that, as we learned in the weeks following, the picture of rapists and looters running loose in a no-man's land turned out to be a media invention. Does that mean that blacks have better native judgment than Sailer thought, and that the residents of New Orleans acted non-barbarically because they were black? Or should we say that they behaved better than originally reported despite being black? What, exactly, is the precise cutoff point for average IQ before a society is supposed to be capable of acting in a civilized manner in a situation like that, other than "higher than the black IQ"?

Or how about Watson's contention that the problem with our Africa policy is that we assume that they are as intelligent as us when they aren't? Is that really the reason for our difficulties? Has he offered any hard evidence that it's the actual cause? Exactly what would the average IQ need to be in order for them to "understand" our policies? On the flipside, why doesn't he say that our problems with North Korea or China stem from us assuming that we're as smart as they are, when in fact we aren't (since the average Asian IQ is higher than the average white IQ)? Because of course, as a white person, he knows that while Asians may outperform somewhat on tests involving timed pattern-matching and such, whites still share the same human capacities for logic and reasoning, and ascertaining truth. So why doesn't he extend it to blacks? Precisely what average IQ does Watson think a people need to have in order to be capable of basic human rationality, other than the fact that he thinks Sub-Saharan Africans don't have it?

At the really extreme end of reductionist excess, you've even got Derb referring to culture as phlogiston (http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=4546&sec_id=4546), as if all ideas, beliefs, and truths were epiphenomena of biology (with biology reducible to genetics)!

Anyhow, all this is a long way of saying that I'm very wary of the race realists. While it appears to be the case that the ZGD dogma is false, I simply don't think I can trust these guys to give me a clear assessment of the situation either. I can't shake the impression that they are filling in gaps in our actual knowledge with their scientismic biases, and presenting it as the scientific view.

My own wariness would come mostly in the areas of a) grand generalizations (I mean, really grand) and b) evolutionary stories, which are mostly made-up, about how this all happened.

Where it seems most plausible to me to assume that group differences are in fact making a difference is where the facts are not in question--e.g. differential scores on heavily G-loaded tests and where those facts are stubborn, not seeming to change over time and income level, etc.

Post a comment

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If
your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same
comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.

Reverse the order of the digits in 31, then type the answer using letters instead of numbers, all lower case. (required):